Categories

Britain faces a serious threat ladies and gentleman. No, it isn’t those nutty towel-heads in Iran. No, it isn’t global warming and the invasion of the mutant polar-bears. No, it isn’t even the shifty looking foreign family who just moved next door to your Daily Mail reading grandparents. It’s the fascists in power trying to prevent us from hunting foxes. The bastards.

Yes, it’s the time when the Tories are about to get back into power, and sod the economy, we need to get hunting again, because that’ll sort this shit right out. It’s no secret the rural base of the Conservative party would like only one thing better than repealing the hunting ban and that’s Margaret Thatcher wearing nothing other than a dog collar and a smile that says “privitise this”. David Cameron has made it perfectly clear he supports the repeal, although he says he’ll offer a “free vote” on this issue. However, what a “free vote” means in a Conservative dominated Parliament is a sure-fire repeal. The current Conservative base overwhelming would vote in favour, including 119/120 in safe seats, showing the overwhelming public support for the ban is unlikely to mean much to the Tories.

So, it seems like fox hunting will return, huzzah! Jeeves, get father’s top champers, that’s spiffing old chap. Now, let’s go chase a fox through the country and laugh when it is torn apart by dogs. But what is funny about this “debate” is the arguments put forward by the pro-hunting lobby.

So let’s look at them.

1 – It’s part of our culture. Yeah baby, who cares if it’s bloodthirsty and horrific, we’ve been doing it for decades, so clearly it can’t be bad. While we’re at bringing back cultural pastimes, I put in a vote for slavery. I’m quite thirsty at the moment, and would love to have a slave on hand to get my brew for me.

2 – Damn townies don’t know shit about our hood – Yeah, it’s easy to complain about what we do FROM THE SAFETY OF YOUR OWN HOME. BUT YOU’RE NOT OUT THERE, LIVING WITH FOXES. WE CAN’T GO OUT OUR HOUSES WITHOUT FEAR OF BEING ATTACKED BY FOXES et cetera. The only reason for opposition to hunting is those arrogant city types, looking down their noses at us just because we kill animals for fun, and wear tweet, and shag our sisters.

3 – Foxicide now – They eat our chickens, damage our property; sleep with our wives, therefore the only way to deal with them is killing them in a brutal fashion so they learn their lesson. Everyone knows animals think like that.

4 – Its good for the foxes – Major point this. The real reason for hunting isn’t fun, but actually because it’s a vital part of our livelihood and actually better for the foxes. After all, more foxes are killed since the ban because they are just shot instead of hunted.

However this raises a bizarre thought: The fox hunting ban has BENEFITTED farmers. Yes, that’s right. The very people who campaigned against the ban, actually benefitted from it. Using their logic, more nasty foxes are since the ban. Ergo, foxes have done less damage. Ergo, farmers benefit.

So in my humble opinion, the hunting ban should be kept, because this benefits the rural economy.

5 – If we ban hunting foxes, then why do we do nasty things to animals? While we ban hunting foxes, no-one complains about battery chickens. Yep, no-one at all campaigns about that. Which clearly shows this is class bias. (N.B.) Some ginger revolutionaries claim the hatred of fox hunting above other methods of animal cruelty is just a symptom of the inherent gingerphobia in society, however here at the Ginger Revolution we deny that foxes are our brothers.

6 – Class bias – Those fucking proles. They’re angry that we fucked them royally in the 80s, so this is their revenge. We destroyed the lives of millions of people, pushed them into poverty and stole their dignity. But as revenge they took away one of our hobbies. The bastards.

7 – The hunting ban is like fascism, but worse. The government has stripped our civil liberties, thrown us into unwinnable and illegal conflicts, and done its best to limit democracy, but the real scary descent into Soviet Russia is the hunting ban. The ban is “fundamentally illiberal” and has “no place in a modern, tolerant and free society” according to The Countryside Alliance. So there we have it, the final blow to liberty, a ban on slaughtering animals for fun. Goodbye freedom, hello oppression, all because we can’t chase and tear apart animals.

Is there anything as pointless as watching a politician debate? It’s up there with telling Silvio Berlusconi of the merits of monogamy or teaching Steven Hawking basketball. In fact, not only is it pointless, but it is painfully dull. Hell, even watching His Holiness Barack Jesus Mohammed Buddha Obama got a bit tedious after a while. But the mentality of US election coverage at least makes it interesting when the nutters on Fox are let out of the mental hospital. Our politicians are so damn boring and inane that it becomes impossible for even the most avid fan to pay attention for long. Even Cameron’s Eton chums will get bored after a while and decide to chase a fox to get a stiffy.

In the absence of any real merits for a debate between candidates, I have a number of proposals that would prove a superior test of skill, as well as being relatively entertaining.

Rap battle – Seeing as political debates are all about sound bites now, we might as well go the whole hog and have a rap battle with all three candidates beating out some rhymes. G to the B to the Brown ft DJ Cameron ft Coolio Clegg.

Who would win? None of the 3 main candidates have any real rapping credentials. (I’m one letter away from a lawsuit there) Brown’s gruff Scottish accent doesn’t lend itself well to the genre, Cameron’s posh background eliminates any possibility of him talking about life in the hood, and Clegg, well no-one knows anything about him so he gets the benefit of the doubt here. However Brown and Cameron do have previous in dissing each other.

Hole in the Wall – It’ll test the candidate’s ability to think under pressure. What is a better test of how someone would react under the pressure of nuclear war than hearing the words “Bring on the wall” and having to fit into whatever shape needed?

Who would win? Brown’s larger physique moves him out the running, in a competition where Cameron is the clear winner due to years of changing shape and policy to whatever is needed.

UFC – What with dastardly Putin posing in that manly posture of his, Berlusconi being attacked by a statue, and Bush skilfully dodging shoes, we need a PM who can handle himself.

Who would win? Brown holds the advantage here, with his body clearly built for wrestling, however Cameron’s years of buggery at Eton may have taught him some underhand tactics.

Let Chuck Norris decide – No need for any of us morons to choose, the only man able to cut through the crap should pick. Chuck Norris would actually make a better PM than all however, and shows how irrelevant the leader actually is. For all the PM can do, the economy will only sort itself out when Chuck wants it to.

Who would win? Society. Democracy may have given power to the people, brought human rights and justice to millions, but compared to rule by Chuck Norris it’s a disaster.

Put them in the Big Brother house – Need to put the whole candidate list in, but what better example of democracy at work than BB? Fiver says Nick Griffin ends up in bed with Galloway

Who would win? Well, this is a trick challenge, as what the contestants don’t realise is that we shut off the Big Brother house, and fill it with flesh eating zombies like in Charlie Brooker’s superb Dead Set. As a result Big Brother is ended perminantly, and all our Prime Ministerial hopefuls are eaten alive. What more could we ask for?

Right let’s just ignore all that spiel I ought to read to find out how this shit works.

Normally blogs open with the “My mates all told me to start a blog because I’m so great, and wonderful, and good, and have a 12 inch…” etc. Unfortunately no-one has told me I should start a blog so I have to come up with something original, which isn’t happening. So with no idea which direction to head in, which topics to talk about and nothing more than a elementary grasp of the English language I make a blog .

Of course, every username and blog title except “New Yorkers Fund Raising for Osama Bin Laden” has been taken so I had to come up with something. All variations of my name have been taken, so that was out the question. Various usernames I use across the internet suffer from being shit. Nicknames are too disgusting to use, plus they’ve been taken as well(I can only hope for more innocent reasons “Crisps” was taken) so naturally being ginger, that’s the defining feature of me. In the absence of fellow gingers rising up against the oppression of society I’ve named this blog in the hope that we will band together and rise up.

But apart from attempts for a global ginger revolution, I’ll be talking crap about politics, football, tv, games, movies, music and those annoying current events that everyone has to comment on regardless of whether they give a toss.